ROFL ... maybe you could add in a voice over to say "HEAD SHOT!" when you score a PK.

G’day Daidalos Team

I have a few ideas/thoughts that I think may enhance the immersion of Il2 a little, these suggestions may not be at all possible to implement but I thought I’d run them up the flag pole anyway.

1. After landing would it be nice if an AI vehicle, say a tanker or a transport was to trundle across to the parked planes, I realise that this may only be possible to be implemented for AI aircraft as they appear to have pre-designated parking places, while player aircraft on the other hand can stop almost anywhere and I doubt that an AI vehicles would be smart enough to find you, I guess there may also be the problem of the AI vehicle running into the players aircraft, but it would give a nice finishing touch to a mission.

2. In the same vein it would be nice if the crash cart or fire tender was to race over to you when you screw up a landing.

3. Slow speed collisions: after landing I generally will go to the effort of parking my ride, usually out of sight in the trees or in a hanger, on the odd occasion I do have extremely slow speed collisions with objects, mainly trees as these tend to have quite unpredictable collisions zone boundaries, however the resulting damage like wings being torn off, engine fires or even entire aircraft explosions seem to be a tad over modelled, all I’m asking is the if speed of a collision can be taken into account so if a slow speed collisions of an aircraft does occur then result could be immobilisation instead in stead of destruction.

4. Flares and AAA, I understand that it was practice (especially for Luftwaffe units) to use recognition flares when landing to alert the airfield defences to the approach of a friendly aircraft, allowing them to ark up when no flares are sited. This could be simulated by the request for landing message, if the player does not request landing permission then the defences could open up on the offending plane.

Sorry if these ideas seem lame or silly, but I have been thinking about them for quite some time.

Just goin over the hill with the tanker....landing with damedge your met by fire trucks and ambulances......:-P

Another old thing I´m not sure,but.

Is it me or the planes look to have nitroglicerine instead of fuel?
When you touch the ground,your plane explodes,even if you do it very gently.

Not lame or silly :). To be honest, I like your suggestions #3 & #4 the best. There would finally be an incentive to radio for clearance. There is the question then about what happens if your radio gets hit (can your radio be knocked out in IL-2??). Will the airfield defences open up until you are close enough for the gunners to get a friend or foe visual on you? That would be a cool addition. #3 would also add a lot in terms of immersion, which is very important to the offliners out there. #1 & #2 would be cool but I see a lot of potential for bugs with that in any upcoming patch. Would the ambulances/tankers be able to drive through all objects within the airfield perimeter (to avoid collisions with hangars, control towers, parked planes, etc)? Would they still be destroyable by enemy pilots? All that said, this feature is not unknown in flight sims, Red Baron 3D had ambulances that came out to meet you (the Allies even had one that came 3-4km over hilly terrain into the forest to meet me and my crashed Albatros at one point :P).
Cheers,

Fafnir_6

Flying a Mig are we ;)

I almost forgot one other immersion idea that I have long thought about, this is in regards to the damage display states of non AI ground targets such as aircraft parked on airfields.

Currently the states consists of only the two, normal and destroyed, what I’d like to see is an effect based mid state much like that of AI controlled aircraft, this would not require extra modelling as the effect state would consits of smoking and or burning.

For me this would allow you to know if you have actually hit your strafing target and make the whole task somewhat more atmospheric (just like those gun cam footage videos that pop up from time to time, showing the parked burning bombers), it would also allow further strafing runs to be more focused.

Additionally once an object is burning, then like an AI aircraft it can eventually explode and thus be counted as destroyed.

As I spend most my time down in the weeds this kind of atmospheric addition would add greatly to the immersion factor for me.

+1

Fafnir_6

I'm often bouncing off the ground. I shouldn't, but it happens. Safely.

You might be under-estimating the sheer speed. It is difficult to judge in a sim and rates of descent and vectors don't always match the direction your heading.

I'm not saying your wrong, but simply that my personal experience is that aircraft are too forgiving in this regard (we might be flying different aircraft as well eg. Il-2 tail impacts on takeoff, vs. P-51 radiator scoop eating dirt).

An update for the stock skins of the bf109?

right now the G10 and G6 late share the same skin

G10

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i1...-preview16.jpg

G6/AS

http://www.cptfarrels.com/Profiles/J...20JG1_1024.jpg

Im sorry for the swastikas, but i couldnt find any good pictures without them.

Err ... no. Both types have a unique texture. :confused:

Texture sharing affects the K-4s, the Yak-3s and the Fw 190 A-5s and D-9s (plus some which may escape my now).

The profiles i showed are just examples.
But how do you know wich skin is used the most?
Still the G6/AS could use a new skin.
Purple with green isnt exactly know as standard Luftwaffe cammo?

It is in fact impossible to make a real "generic" texture since a lot depended on the place where the aircraft was produced, when, where it was employed and by what unit. As a result the default textures are, in fact, not really historical but approximations following known guidelines on camouflage patterns and colours along with a few tactical markings. So each default is not always going to be spot on for each an every location for all possible timeframes.

But each default also has to be generic enough to allow for broad use so creating defaults is always a walk on a tightrope.

http://users.hol.gr/~nowi/luftcam/index.html

I found this site. Dont know if this is of any use.

The bf109 RLM camoschemes from 1939-44' are pretty easy to find.
But the late 44'-45' camoschemes are rare.

Just wondering ... have you installed the new defaults for a lot of planes which came with 4.09?

I have the stock 4.09m version of il2.
I dont know of any new defaults? :confused:
But im checking it right now.

4.09 was a two-piece patch - the standard stuff which brought the game to version 4.09 and then there was a second optional pack with new defaults.

Yes, ive found it and downloaded it.
The skins are very good!

How could i not know of the new 4.09 defaults. :rolleyes:

Thanks!

I agree with all your points except this one. A big plane can take a lot of damage, especially from small caliber bullets, unless some of that damage hits a vital point. I don't find the bombers themselves to be difficult to shoot down - as long as I use historical tactics and aim for the cockpit, fuel tanks or engines.

If I'm going against a big (or tough) bomber using a plane armed with pellet guns, like a Ki-43 or Hurricane I vs. a TB-3 or B-24, I just have to get close and try to start a fire or kill the pilots.

What I do find unrealistic are the uncannily accurate gunners who have perfect situational awareness and seemingly limitless ammo, who can ignore G-forces and sometimes defy even death itself.

Ground vehicle/ship movement
 

While I know that ships and vehicles don't have AI and that it would be difficult/impossible for them to have it, would it be possible to incorporate the following options into a future patch:

1) The ability to automatically make a ground vehicle/ship make zig-zagging deviations as it travels along a set course instead of traveling in a straight line. That is, on the FMB map, the vehicle's waypoints go in a straight line, but in the game, it zig-zags/swerves as it travels. This was standard procedure for ships during the war, and was sometimes practiced by ground vehicles, either to avoid attack from the air or to present a slightly angled armored surface to potential enemies directly to the front.

In the FMB, the option to zig-zag could be set up as a checkbox. If left unchecked, movement would be straight by default.

2) The ability to make ground vehicles/ships move in formation, centered around a central point, without having to define individual waypoints for each individual vehicle. This would allow mission builders to quickly set up historical formations such as convoys of merchant ships traveling in a "box" flanked by destroyers or a squadron of tanks advancing in a line abreast or an echelon. With proper spacing between vehicles, formations could zig-zag/swerve in a realistic fashion.

3) The ability for a ground vehicle/ship to swerve if it gets within a set distance of a certain object rather than colliding and doing the "bumper car" routine. Currently, ground vehicles back up one vehicle length, turn 30-45 degrees and then try to go forwards. It would be more realistic and more elegant to have the vehicle turn immediately when it gets within a set distance from another vehicle (less than 1 vehicle length?), make travel along a < or > or ( or ) course (an arc or two opposing 30-45 degree turns) and then continue along its previous heading.

Clouds/smoke/dust/fog
 

Three ideas for some patch in the future:

1) Multiple cloud layers, which can be defined in the QMB/FMB. Ideally, you should be able to set base height for each layer, as well as maximum top and bottom level, degree of opaqueness, percentage of cover and rain/snow effects. For example, you could, say, set 90% cloud cover from 300 meters to 2,000 meters with light rain, with clear skies above that to 10,000 meters where you encounter wispy clouds 20% coverage, with peaks up to 12,000 meters. Fog is modeled by creating low level full cover semi-opaque clouds.

2) Placeable clouds/dust/smoke/etc. In the FMB, you could place areas of cloud/whatever on the map, as defined above. By changing the color of the clouds you could get dust clouds (like sandstorms or those generated by big desert battles) or massive areas of smoke (caused by massive fires on the ground, or the pollution which hung over all big cities in the days when most heat and power was generated using coal).

3) The degree of dust kicked up by aircraft/vehicles varies depending on weather, map and surface. For example, a plane taking off from a concrete runway in moist temperate conditions isn't likely to kick up much dust, while a plane taking off from a sandy landing strip is likely to produce huge clouds of the stuff.

Dear DAIDALOS TEAM hi i tink the FIAT CR42 back not have a just dimension and measuring.
loock whit attenction this photo.
Attachment 3987
Attachment 3988
the hump back according to my analysis is very wide and very high.
this is original photo.

Attachment 3989
Attachment 3990
Attachment 3991

profile cr 42
Attachment 3992
Attachment 3993
Attachment 3994

flyable B25 H??
 

hi all is there any chance to have the B25 H flyable using the B25 J cockpit in the 4.10 update?? the cockpits must have been the same :)

To my knowledge there were differences between the two types so the answer must be no.

to bad about B25H maybe a flyable "ju88c" ;)

Attachment 3995

wrong desine please daidalos team corect the just desine of _FIAT cr 42

The one major difference was the lack of dual controls which were in many cases re-introduced as a field modification and a few less instruments, the cockpit we have for the B-25J could be used without really modifying that anything else that was different in the cockpit would not be in the view of the pilot.

It's against the agreement between Daidalos and Maddox Games just to "recycle" existing cockpits. The answer is still no to that solution. ;)

I'm not arguing with that understand but would it be safe to say that in the entire sim with so many of the same general type that no part of any original cockpit was recycled from one Spit or 109 to another? I mean in the spirit of the said agreement we wouldn't want a B-25 cockpit in a B-17 anyway but a B-25 to another B-25? Would that be forbidden?

It would be against what Daidalos promised Oleg. We'd have to research differences (and there will be differences, Murphy's Law says so :mrgreen: ) and incorporate them or make a totally new cockpit. ATM our resident cockpit guru is busy with other projects. ;)

does that mean you can not redo the old cockpits of old IL2 planes??

I didn't say that. I said we can't copy&paste them into some other aircraft. That's a difference, isn't it? ;)

Reusing cockpits "vulgarize" the aircraft.
I used to play Wings over Vietnam,and most add on aicraft had A-4 cockpit (one example was the Yak-15).Even large bombers!!!
That makes flying the aircraft a little less enjoyable.

is there any cockpits updates done in the 4 .10 update?

having other compromises (to reduce workload) in game in mind , the use of the B-25J cockpits (sure except the front gunner and the bombardier ;) ) for the B-25H, to make it a flyable one, should realy be a minor one.

its a good idea IMHO.
something to think about for after 4.10 - if there is something like that ;)

The P.11 has been worked on, but I don't know if the cockpit was improved as well as the exterior model.

Sound, TrackIR and Buttkicker
 

While panning around with the TrackerIR, the engine sound is diminished by design when looking other than straight ahead. I would like to be able to override this feature, permitting constant sound levels regardless of the view. I tried to do it in the Conf.ini file but no joy there.
Reason: The ButtKicker is a simple but effective vibration inducing device which causes my "Cockpit Chair" to act like a big Force Feedback device in response to the sound output. It really enhances the experience except that it quits vibrating when the sound is reduced by turning my head while using the TrackIR system. Cockpits are so loud in real life, I never understood this semi-muting feature anyway.

Changes to parachute/bailout behavior
 

Another idea for the wishlist: improved parachute/bailout realism.

1) Chance of parachute failure for aircrew bailing out, increased if the crew member is wounded (simulates damage to the parachute or unconsciousness). Some estimates of parachute failure were as high as 10%.

2) Player or FMB control (for AI) over when parachutes open. In some cases, crew waited until they were fairly close to the ground before they opened their parachutes in order to avoid enemy fire.

3) Random parachute opening altitudes for aircrew bailing out. Often, aircrew had minimal training in how to use a parachute. They sometimes opened their 'chutes too high or too low.

4) Paratroops open their chutes after falling a set distance from the plane. This simulates paratroopers using static line parachutes.

5) Different bailout speeds for paratroopers. Paratrooper training emphasized leaving the plane as quickly as possible in order to keep the "stick" of paratroops together.

6) DM for parachuting figure modified so that if it is shot, it is subject to crew wounded/heavily wounded/killed with the canopy still open, rather than the stock parachute collapse animation.

7) Parachute canopy should be much more resistant to gunfire. Currently it collapses too easily.

8 ) Parachutist model should be modified so that it inflicts much less damage to a plane in a collision.

9) Skins can be assigned to paratroopers carried as cargo.

10) Weapons containers ejected from aircraft along with paratroopers for nations who used such things (i.e., Britain, U.S., Germany).

11) Bailout animation modified so that crew are vulnerable to collisions with parts of their own aircraft. Unless done carefully, it was possible for crew to be injured or killed by a collision with the aircraft's tail. This was especially a problem with twin-boomed planes like the P38.

12) Different figure and animation sequence used for paratroops. Paratroops don't go into "free fall" when they bail out of an airplane. Instead, they drop feet first until the static line opens their 'chute, then grab the risers to stabilize the 'chute as it descends.

13) Some ability to control, or even "fly," the 'chute. It was possible to maneuver the round WW2 era parachutes a bit by pulling on one of the risers to spill a bit of air. Of course, this ran the risk of collapsing the chute.

14) Reserve 'chutes for forces that used them (most aircrew didn't carry reserves, though).

15) The possibility of placing parachutes above the map in the FMB. This would allow you to create missions where aircrew have already bailed out and you must shoot/protect them on the way down.

Ditching/water landing changes
 

Another one for the wishlist: Changes in the appearance of aircrew floating on water.

1) It appears that the animation for a floating aircrew/aircrew in a life raft only appears if you're flying for the U.S. or Japan. Teach the British, Germans, Russians, etc. how to swim! Make floating figures/figures in life rafts for other nations.

2) Allow the pilot skin to be retained for the floating/life raft figure.

3) Get rid of the samurai sword on the floating Japanese figure, few Japanese aircrew carried swords! More to the point, it doesn't appear on the stock parachuting figure.

4) Create larger (2 or 5 man) life rafts for heavy bombers, etc. which appear when the plane ditches.

5) Allow certain planes to float for longer periods of time when they ditch. For example, the B17 could float for several minutes. If properly ditched most planes will float for at least a few seconds before sinking - longer than currently modeled.

6) Link crew in life raft/crew in water animations to survival equipment carried onboard the aircraft. That is, if the plane historically didn't carry a raft, you don't appear in a raft when you ditch. If it carried two, then two or more aircrew appear in rafts.

7) Possibility of adding raft/floating figures to FMB. These can be move and be given waypoints to represent swimming or currents.

8 ) Chance of drowning. Currently, you always successfully bail out of a sunken plane, regardless of how far underwater your plane is. If you can't get out of your plane in time, there's a chance of a pilot/crew killed result.

9) The "running man" animation should replace the "floating man"/life raft animation if you ditch in extremely shallow water just off shore. Of course, the bailout animation should have you bailing out so that you run towards land.

All I really want is the new Hs-129 cockpit & the Dornier...really thats it...I promise I'll be happy!

Is the KI-61-TEI variant considered to be included someday in the future? (the Hien/Tony with the cowling cannons)
AFAIK it was the most numerous variant (you are free to prove otherwise), yet there isn't even an AI only model. :(

Get your references together :). That way, if someone elects to work on this most worthy subject, they can hit the ground running.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

Most worthy subject, huh? :D

HERE are some very detailed drawings of the TEI variant (last five pics right side) and two nice articles to add.
Production data of HEI (Mauser equipped) and TEI variants ...

Hope it's enough to get the groundwork started...
:)

Being a big fan of the Kawasaki fighters I too would think this is a very worthy addition. Even correcting the flaws in the models we currently have *cough* turning ability *cough* would go a long way in my book.

Billfish has done encyclopedic work on this subject, hopefully she will illuminate us more on the subject.

http://ww2drawings.jexiste.fr/Files/...I-Tei-Hien.htm

Don´t forget Ki-45 and 44!

BTW,saw there was a Hien II.

http://ww2drawings.jexiste.fr/Files/...61-II-Hien.htm

http://ww2drawings.jexiste.fr/Files/...1-IIb-Hien.htm

http://ww2drawings.jexiste.fr/Files/...I-KAI-Hien.htm

hi all!

will the 4.10 include corrected flight models, especially for the us and german aircrafts?
(there are good buttons available , especially at SAS and Histomod!)

Corrected in what ways? If you want them "corrected", please illuminate us as to what you think is wrong. Is your request based on "feelings" that something is wrong? Do you have any hard data to back your case?

Not saying there are not problems, but making a blanket statement like you did gives no one any clues as to what you think should be changed.

Good buttons compared to what, exactly? Many of the mod FMs that I am familiar with seem to be more based on "what feels right" or personal bias, rather than reality.

Fully agreed.
I suppose, for 4.10, if some FM are modified or created, all rational and data will be provided to cut definively this kind of request.

the question was :"will the 4.10 include corrected flight models?"

Haha! asking for "corrected flight models" is indeed pretty strait forward given the apparent sensitiveness of the subject!:) and i assumed there was a consensus that some Fms were sometimes a bit too generous some times not.:eek:

Well, looking into the flight models datas, and engine models datas especially, i noticed that some of them have been under modeled (rolls Royce; BMW; Daimlers;Pratt& Whitneys) or over modeled (Griffons,Shvestov, Klimovs).

the only answer i came up with was that it was to meet with the Cx/Cy coefficients given (and vis-versa), to make fms coherent, but at the disadvantage of the "time to full power available; and full power available" especialy for BMWs, and at the advantage of Russian engines.

Furthermore the Bmw engines are some times laking up to 400hp .
In this regard fms might be correct, and it is the powerplants models that are glitching.

I do not know how gravity is managed in the game, but aircrafts tend to bleed energy extremely rapidly. i happen to be a pro pilot and it seems to me that gravity is a bit overmodeled given the mass of the aircrafts, this could partly explain the awkwardness of certain flight models. especially for the 190 series p51 and p47s.
My experience as pilot also tells me that you cannot know if you haven't tested, nevertheless, going back to the fw190 series, the only Fm i have to compare with il2 's , is the classic hangar's for FSx.

for example: the A5 series
In simillar conditions of T°, Wheight and altitude,

in their model the acceleration and Vz are superior.

vz ex:

IL2: max vz climb= 270km/h
Ch: max Vz climb=290km/h

il2: Vz= 15m/sec
CH: Vz= 26/ sec

top speeds are similar to il2s

who is right?

Aerodynamics already isn't an exact science, so i fully understand the difficulty for Fm builders.
i am not saying that this is due to bias point of views or to give some sort of balance between aircrafts.
being completely ignorant in terms of programming, and software architecture i think it might be so to meet with the game engine's environment (eX:atmosphere model).
is that so?

I am sorry to disappoint you, but i obviously did not come here with the Fm bible! :grin: english is not my mother tongue, and what i ment by good buttons, was that they are interesting and i can only encourage people to look into the SaS and Histomod Fm datas, and make up their own opinion!;-)

Have a nice day!:grin:

Hi Rambock,

taking FM from another game, just becauces it "seems" better, is definitely not the way to work. If these guys have some hard documents to backup the correctness of those FMs, you can contact them, ask for such documents and submit them to DT mail adress.

thx

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...b-20-10-43.jpg

Vz=26 m/s for the fw190A5 is not possible according to this source. iL2's A5 seems to be pretty accurate with Vz=15 m/s. (without mw50)




What kind of aircraft do you fly on Rambock?

It is obvious that it is not the way to work!! I am not saying that classic hangar is right, and that you are wrong for I do not know!
Again I am not asking for fms to change in such and such a way!!!
I made a comparison of two fms asking which seemed the most relevant to those who program fms for il2 planes!

My questions initially was, but I will put it in other words:

will there be modifications to flight models?

I'll compile the ch fm datas, and will ask them for the charts they based themselves onto!

According to this source it does appear that il2 vz fm for the specified aircraft is correct!


As to what aircraft I fly on, it is for the moment a Beech90F starting a b737ng TR in January!:)



EDIT : great document indeed!! but as you can see, the mass taken in account is 4000kg whereas the il2 model takes these mass in account!
[Mass]
Empty 3391.0
TakeOff 4200.0 is it the MTOW? or is it 4000kg as stated in the document?
Oil 50.0
Fuel 394.0

In the game, FM is a combination of data in file xxxx and the process of these data by the soft itself.
Only speaking about data without speaking of what is inside the soft, IMHO, is a waste of time and could result to wrong interprétation.
For example, you mention a TakeOff value of 4200, but, are you sure that this value is used during a "virtual" flight ?

In fact, the only way to cut off this kind of discussion about FM (some of them havé started at the initial release of IL2), is that DT provides, when 4.10 will be released, rationals used for FM (of course for new/modified aircraft).

You might be right.
The good thing is that Oleg Maddox made this sim to use RL data and not phantasy data.
He is using a metric system.

In my humble opinion this is the only way to make a simulator that is worth being named as such.

Now when he is using 4000 or 4200 as weight he took the data from somewhere and didn´t phantasize(hopefully).

The question is only from where did he take it.

:shock:obviously no! it will logically decrease during flight between 4200kg to 3806kg(zero fuel weight) but if we already have a 200kg overload at take off, you will always keep those 200kg .:!:

if 4000kg is the TOW, the zero fuel weight is at 4000-394= 3606kg
200kg makes quite a huge difference in the way an aircraft behaves especially for small 4T aircrafts!


are you saying then that they modified the raw data to fit the game engine?


Id be realy interested to know what charts oleg has been using to build his flight models!

I don't usually post in this manner but.....................

Its called game balancing.

I have missions I created from over 10 years ago and its blatantly obvious what's happened over time to the game.

RL data means nothing in IL2 as the dogfight servers whined and moaned the aircraft were "made more suitable".

Certainly the data is out there now IL2 has been opened up there no hiding it, and (in the right places) the discussion regarding this is of disbelief.

Problem

Put RL data into the game it becomes unbalanced and the whining starts again.

Solution

As before, let the masses win over reality for the sake of sales "Ace expansion pack"
Tweak patches for game balancing.

IMHO

Complete RL data will never be input into the game for all the aircraft it just wouldn't work.

The only problem is that Oleg stated that he never balanced the game but used raw RL data only.

It's a sad state of affairs, that there has to be such a thing as "balancing". No one can experience the real aircraft (unless they fly for a museum) and then they can't experience the simulation of it either.

There is already the choice between difficulty settings. What's keeping the developers (TD or 1C:Maddox) from adding a choice option between "balanced" and "realistic" data?

Please don't be so naive.

Did Oleg personally input the data himself.

I am well aware that the intention was always to have a running updated IL2 series as credible data was made available the aircraft were "adjusted".

The problem is are the Russian TsAGI reports 100% accurate in IL2

Also the captured Fw190 A8 test is a perfect example of incorrect data.

Aircraft weights and bombs, rocket pylons, weapons all have anomalies bias.

Ok last post for me before in this thread......... I get too wound up

Just hope DT address some of these bugs/exploits whatever :)

Edit: spelling

I can only tell you what he said in an interview.

How he is organizing the workflow in his team, I can´t tell you but that shouldn´t a topic here.

ok, well that explains quite a lot of things. it is a shame, in terms of credibility.

looking into the game data, i saw that the russian armement pylones where listed weighing 0kg whereas the german's weigh tonnes...:confused:

Nevertheless, i want to thank the daidalos team, for their immense work! looking forward to test their radio navigation mod!

OK lets distinguish between two things ...

a) game balancing where modifications are made to red and blue side so they have roughly equal chances of success

b) game balancing where inherent biases in the game engine are countered by adjusting data. For example if the game-engine/damage-model used means heavy machine guns are too effective when compared to real life, then adjust the figures for those guns so overall they behave more realistically.


I had the impression that in IL2 a) does NOT occur but b) does. This means unless you know the reasons for the adjustments viewing the raw data in the cracked code can give a false impression of game bias.

It also means that in terms of user created aircraft just plugging in the correct raw data does NOT guarantee an aircraft that performs correctly compared to the historical original.

I don't believe Oleg balanced the sim, but used what he thought was the best data he had.

The data is the big problem. We can't compare the WW2 aircraft now, but have to rely on data written by people who may have had a bias one way or another, or more likely even they could not do a comprehensive assessment.

What we have is very playable except for everyones favorite aircraft which is of course "porked". lol

I have a small request that I've been thinking about. The grass runways (not the fields) in the winter and summer are nearly invisible, and I find it's impossible to make a good approach to them because you need to be nearly overhead to make out where they are, can the textures for these be darkened? Due to the "bumpy ground" effect there is often only a short strip of some 40 to 50 feet wide to make a safe landing in. I know that lights/fires could be placed etc. but I find this affects the Dgen campaign missions as well.

The bias of IL2 is like this:

Say you want to "represent" 2 sniper teams from a historic battle. You can model the accuracy of gunners, the quality of weapons they used in a degree... but you can't mimic the fact that one of the team was starving all that time. That's why it lost... but in your simulation... it will win.

The mission builder would set the AI level of the starving team lower.

Partially true. It's possible to have an aircraft simulated these days. I'm not saying it would be to the NASA number crunching level, but you would get very close to real numbers of drag, Mach-number on compression and other numbers that are needed for an aircraft's flight envelope. If only to confirm the numbers someone is using are close enough.

A new large west european map would a nice addition.

How true. lol
The one constant bug in every combat sim out there. in :grin:

Hear, hear! This point is too often left out (other issues aside)

@ WTE_Galway

First of all you are preoccupied by saying that "the users only copy FM data to create a new one".
Which is wrong. In the beggining, 2 years ago it was the truth, but now, it is not. Them more the people dig in the "code", the most accurate FMs they produce and it applies to every aspect of game.

And you take for granted that game's data in every aspect is "correct", or "balanced", etc...
While you can only "speculate" these things, i can talk with absolute values.

A VERY small sample from the bombs ;) :D

Compare the FAB500 and SC500 Iron Bombs:


__________________Fab1000___________SC1000
Effective Radius___500 m ___________168 m
Weight of HE_______555 kg___________630 kg
Weight of Bomb___1000 kg__________1090 kg


;)

And now lets see the 1 ton iron bombs, the last example:

FAB1000

And compare it with the German 1 ton SC1000


__________________Fab1000___________SC1000
Effective Radius___500 m ___________168 m
Weight of HE_______555 kg___________630 kg
Weight of Bomb___1000 kg__________1090 kg


;)

Now this does explain some issues in the game, doesn't it ? A lot of people had the "feeling" of being inneffective when they bombed targets, but they did not have the solid data to argue or support their "feeling". If they had this i would say they would have an argument, wouldn't they?
And we are talking for bombs having the Same KGs, they belong to the same "family" (iron bombs) and used for the same general purpose.
So the data are absolute. The numbers are absolute.

There are litterally dozens of things like this. So if someone put more appropriate data would this be a bad biased "hack"? And if so, then what can be said about the game's data?

And believe me if i start with the air cannons and Mgs.....

Cheers :)

P.S.
And because someone here talked about Pylon weights;

ALL the following Pylons have ZERO Weight on plane:
PylonRO_82_1
PylonRO_82_3
PylonPE8_FAB100
PylonPE8_FAB250
PylonMG15120Internal


The 4 of them are Russian Bomb and Rocket Pylons and the other is the German MG151/20 Internal cannon firing through the wing root.

The Dual pylon of MG151/20 (PylonMG15120x2) weights 450 kilos.

And all there rest weight 150 kilos y default.


The TD Changed in 4.09m the rest pylons weight that instead of 150kg they weight 15 kg.


Judge for yourself. That practically means that it is adviasable to take Rockets on Russian fighters because there is no penalty for added drag, since it is 0.

And weight here mainly means Drag! ;)

An something else:
Everybody complains about the "sniper gunners". Well, there is a parameter that defines the "angle error" of the 'bullet", for each weapon.
This is the "Dispersion" of each gun. The Sniper value is the ZERO dispersion, and the more we increase it, the less accurate this weapon is,
and thus the gunner.

Lets see the Berezin B-20 20mm Soviet cannon when mounts a defensive installation in a bomber:


maxDeltaAngle = 0.0F;

It means that despite it is mounted in a flexible defensive installation its dispersion value is "0", meaning that chances are you get a bullet in your head in no-time.

Lets check the German MG151/20 when mounted in a defensive installation:

maxDeltaAngle = 0.25F;

It has a considerable dispersion value so you won't get a bullet in your head so easily. But still this value is somehow high
compared with the value that the same weapon has when mounted in a plane.

And last lets check the MG131 when it mounts a defensive position:

maxDeltaAngle = 0.35F;

Again, you are fee to judge :)

Fascinating.
Which planes use this MGunB20t installation?

Well, this Berzin 20mm is not used But the SvVAK 20mm IS, and it also has 0 dispersion value:

maxDeltaAngle = 0.0F;

It is used by PE-8 Heavy Bomber.

Sorry that i confused these 2 20mm Soviet sniper cannons. Now you know that a 20mm Cannon is as accurate as a sniper gun.
And BTW, don't you find "fascinating" the bomb data?
could you clarify this for us please?

Thank you for your time, :)

Very nice posts, Hades!

Though I'm not a fan of mods because there are too many cheating mod users online. (In fact, I have not played IL2 for months because of this.) But I'm standing on your side this time. Thank you for providing us the facts that prove our 'feeling' was right. I'll wait and see whether BoB will still have such intentionally unbalanced FMs before I make a purchase.

You didn't confuse anything. Your agenda was clear from the start.
One plane out of cca 300 hundred has a wrong gun with maxDeltaAngle bug, so what? It happens to be a Russian bomber. Just as easily it could have been one of the Luftwaffe bombers.

What is exactly wrong with the bomb data? Do you have any historical evidence or historical tests which prove otherwise? If indeed it is a bug, how big it must have been when nobody made a simple ingame test for 10 years? Do you expect developers to jump every time when someone says that there might be something wrong?

What i wrote above is known. An the TD guys know them.
I really hope that all these will be fixed one day.

Cheers :)

Do you REALLY want to start over this?
Come on, ;)
And you confirmed that i was right about the 20mm sniper-gun. Thank you for this.

And about the bombs:
So it is Perfectly OK Bombs of the SAME "family", having the SAME weight to have 3+ times greater effective radius?

There are data, yes. So you say that you haven't found any? And again, what makes you think that a bomb of the same weight using the same technology can have >3 times more the effective radius?

Start? No. I'll let the readers be be the judge of your posts.

You were right about something? I wouldn't go that far. Maybe in your political views you lean to the right.

I was perfectly clear about the bombs effectiveness. Without historical evidence and/or documents, the numbers stay the same as they are. There is no other option.

Anything else?

So lets summarise:

A) It is ok certain bombs to have >3 times the effective radius compared with the same family bombs from another side.
B) It is OK that bomb and Rocket pylons from a certain side to NOT cause drag or add weight to certain fighters while all other Pylons add significant weight and drag.
C) Its OK guns from a certain side to be more accurate.

And you are talking about "political agenta", :D

Anything else?
Are you planning to fix this? And yes, there are data for bombs. I'll send you some time allows.

Cheers, :)

A) Why wouldn't it be OK, if this matches the historical performance? If you have any documents proving otherwise, feel free to send them to the appropriate address. You don't want us to "balance" things because it is unfair, do you? Have you checked other nations too? I've heard that Japanese have some uber bombs also...
B) Where did you get that from? Maybe those 4 types of pylons are considered as always attached and the penalty for "your" nemesis is always on? You can at least detach "your" pylons and fly without them just by using a different loadout.
C) Which side? Which guns? All I saw was rambling about uber RED guns and completely distorted perception of what the numbers 'mean'.

Are you accusing me of RED bias? :mrgreen:
I have to bookmark this post.
I suppose people will easily see who has the agenda here. If you do not completely edit your posts, that is.

We will fix anything that is wrong in the game:
1) if it is feasible (regarding time needed and our skills).
and
2) if we have/obtain evidence to back it up.

Oh, since you are editing your post so fast, I'll preserve this pearl for posterity:

..again with the ships...
 

dear TD members
some time ago i made a request, if it was possible for you guys to enable padlocking of ships, as can be done with planes and ground targets.
since there was no reply either in either direction, i thought it might be a good idea for me to re-define the question.
currently, ships can be padlocked, but only for about 2-3 seconds, before the padlock is lost - thus rendering the ship padlock ability practically useless.
do you guys think you could fix this, please, and enable ships to be properly padlocked, as one would padlock an aircraft - so that the padlock can be maintained indefinitely, unlesss the player's view to it is obstructed by interference from aircraft cockpit/fuselage/angle?
this would be a much appreciated fix for many peopple. thanks in advance.

Do you have any of these data? And no, i don't want to balance things but to be as close to historical perspective as possible. And about the Japanese: Have you heard this or you have seen this? It is importand.

????
I don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying that these Pylons are ALWAYS attached to the airplanes even in default loadout? In this case you are wrong. An example using these anti-gravity (ops 0 kg i meant) Pylons is the I-16 Type 24.

So you mean that you are unaware of the game's specs? If yes then how will you be able to make proper adjustments? And i clearly stated in simple words what these numbers mean.
I have also "heard" that some certain guns have increased damage and that some other have Twice the penetration ability of some others, have you "heard" it also? A comparison can be made by using some reliable data (except from books of course) like this:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

He is the author of the Flying Guns.

I am not accusing anyone for anything. I only want historical accuracy and proper "tuning"/bug correcting of the game.

I edited what exactly? I didn't edit the MEANING of the posts, but saved space for un-needed "data". It is not the place for extensive inspecting of the data.

What kind of evident do you need to make the Pylons to have weight?
What kind of data did you use when you made all the rest of the Pylons weighting from 150kgs to weight 15 kgs?

Oh, and drag means less maneuvrability, less climbing, etc...
Language barrier? Perhaps.

Cheers, :)

So the question comes down to whether we should expect TD to make changes based on cherry-picked data, because some people think there is a conspiracy to boost certain nations' aircraft?

So much for objectivity.

Team Daidalos does not fix stuff because it looks wrong, but when correct data is provided and it contradicts current game values. What's the point in balancing stuff instead of fixing it?

Simple question related to the example: Which bomb is wrong - the FAB 1000 or the SC 1000? Or both? What would you want TD to do without knowing the proper values? Guessing? In the worst case you end up with even more wrong values.

No, you are wrong. The "sniper effect" happens with all guns and it has nothing to do with the maxDeltaAngle.

So all bombs with same weight belong to same family by your logic? German SC bombs are thin wall high-explosive bombs that kill with blast effect. Not with sharapnels. I recall that most of the allied bombs kill also with shrapnels so their effective radius should be naturally bigger. Isn't this issues something that have been discussed at UBI forums countless of times?

How many people have actually whined about the pylon mass bug during all the IL-2 years? I haven't seen any complaints, since weight != drag :-P. Probably the biggest effect that is has is making for example Seafire with rockets too heavy and carrier take-off is more difficult.

Oh... maybe the 0kg value was a "place holder" value. That would make it prefectly ok, right?

S!

Read thru this thread and posting some thoughts. IL-2 is a great game, but not without flaws/bugs/features. Some have been known for ages, but yet to be corrected. Some are game engine limitations and the rest falls in whatever category. TD has taken over patching IL-2 and many of you are either longtime fans of IL-2, ex-IL-2 team members(SaqSoN?) etc. So you SHOULD have the insight how IL-2 works and how it has been all this time. So...

Maybe TD should consult some military EOD/Armament personnel to get their facts right and more info about bombs and/or armament. If you REALLY claim that a SC1000(or any bomb of that size regardless country) with effective 600kg+ of TNT blowing up has a range of less than 200m then really you know nothing about bombs or explosives in general. The bombs could use a check, ALL of them to make sure. Not only the Germans but ALL. Clear enough? Claiming things without checking and back-up, that is just empty words.

I can give an example. In an EOD excercise we blew up a charge of 2.5Kg consisting of PETN. The blast could be felt at 300m, a clear blast wave that moved clothing. And that was a mere 2.5Kg equal some 4.66kg of TNT. So try to imagine 600kg+ TNT exploding that near. You would be dead and things near you blown away. So please, check the bombs. Please?

Since day 1 in IL-2 the Russian guns have had smallest dispersion of ALL guns except the TIE twin lasers on I-16 or I-153 that have some of it. It was, and still is, childishly easy to kill a running Bf109 with a Yak-1b's 20mm cannon by sniping off as you need to take very little lead to get a hit even up to extreme ranges. This on FinskaViken1 server before the "mod episode" came up, squad flew as reds to show that the Bf109G-2 was not that superior after all ;)

I would be extremely happy to see TD fixing bugs more first than adding a heap of new content, which can cause new bugs thus adding to the workload big enough already. You got the tools for it, use them.

Yea but DT if even would like to change something they first need to accept changes from 1C.

I really really doubt that they will ever get agreement from 1C ( Oleg M.) in such case which could affect any russian plane or weapon.

After above 10 years of these game, many discuss in many forums i have not any doubt that many things in game were balanced against historical realism.

Truly speaking who would like to fly early-mid war russian planes when they would be made with more historical and realistic performacne regarding fact that Il2 was primary designed for Russian market?

Hardly. Who talked about "cherry-picked" data. And this does not affect the German planes or guns/bombs. The soviet Pylons concern the Soviet planes and not the German, right? Also the .50s caliber are way more weak than the UBs 12mm machine guns. If you want to check a plane that has at leat "weird" Damage Model check the SM-79. Try to bring it down, compare it with other contemporary planes, and read any data you could find.

I presented data while you have not. This doesn't make you more "objective".

I never said about balance. I have always talked about Fixing it.

I just asked something that looks wrong. You can find generic bomb blast range/damage data but its hard to find for these specific bombs.
I just question myself on how should be such a huge difference between bombs of the same category, same weight.

I have not found any account to stress this huge difference for these bombs.

And how would i want to fix this stuff since not exact data is available? Well, i'll say something like the following:

The 7.62 mm Browning machine guns were almost equal with the 7.62mm ShKAS in terms of damage and penetration ability. As you can see from here:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Historic%20MGs.htm

They have almost the same muzzle velocity and muzzle energy.

The ShKAS are slightly stronger for about less than 10%.
In game though they have almost twice the penetration ability of the 7.62 browning ones. Instead of probably 10. 20 or 30%
Just do the following "experiment":

Try to make a bomber to caught fire with a plane armed with the brownings like a Hurrie or Spit and try the same with a plane armed with the ShKAS like the I-16 or I-153.

You will be amazed how easily the ShKAS will cause fire and increased damage compared with the Brownings.

How could this be "Fixed"? Well, you can always inspect/judge the data values for the same category gun so maybe increasing the penetration ability of the brownings to be closer wouldn't be such a mistake, should it?
Since the muzzle vellocity and muzzle energy differ in less than 10% perhaps if you adjust the brownings to have the 80-90% the penetration value of the ShKAS you would be inside the 5% general accepted error.
Is it a "Biased" and wrong logic?

Nope, you are ;) Just change the delta angle and fly again. No matter if the gunner is Ace or not, you'll get significant less headshots.
The delta angle error ALSO plays significant role in this aspect.

The German iron bombs also had the sharpnel "effect":
The following are from the SC German bombs:
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c9...7/P5200004.jpg
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c9...7/P5200005.jpg
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c9...7/P5200006.jpg
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c9...7/P5200007.jpg


You didn't answer what kind of data you used to make all the previously weighted 150 kgs pylons to weight 15 kilos.
And you didn't also answer what are you going to do for the Zero weight pylons.

Cheers :)

Aye, aye, aye, it hurts to see how you deal with obvious errors in game, man.

The argument could go the other way around as well.
What sources did Oleg use to put Russian wonder weapons into game.

BTW the FAB bomb example doesn´t compare to any other bomb by any other nationality.

And you say mods poorly made and researched. Ouch.

Now this is what we have in game

______________Fab1000
Effective Radius___500 m
Weight of HE_____555 kg
Weight of Bomb__1000 kg

and this is what we have in RL with megalomaniac bombs:
???

You said it can't be that bomb A has a larger blast radius than bomb B without backing that claim up with research data. So you want to change values because you don't like them, without knowing the correct ones. So you're certainly not talking about fixing it.

Well, then I guess you start looking. And when you found relevant data, you post it, and there's a good chance for change.

And for what it's worth, I agree with your point of view that there's little reason to justify the blast radius difference. What I don't agree with is changing values without knowing the proper ones.

Where is the data to proof the original in game data is right?
While i trust OM and his crew thats not enough here, me thinks.
If there is no data to find one should use logic.
To defend the ingame data without proof doesn't work.
my 2 cents.

Just somethings i would like to see introduced..
 

1. Weapons arming/safety switches implemented into the controls section, to include an intervalometer and jettison without arming for bombs. (in video for jettison i think)

2. Drop tanks having a selector switch, from wings at take off to drop tanks and back to wings to jettison drop tanks.

3. Bomb bay doors in controls section for open and close. (exists in mods)

4. Do something about the He-111 taxi dance for ground handling, did it really have that much torque??

5. An updated pilots cockpit guide with an included rpm and pitch section with basic data.

What are you blabbering about? Read your posts again.
You presented false and incomplete information. I've responded to that.

If you have more issues to present, do it properly this time. I have given you all the necessary information how to do that.

Oh, and about that language barrier you hit; try googling for basic forces of flight.

What are you blabbering, to use your vocabulary. You got alarming data and you pretend you don´t see it!


Others say it´s cherry picking, while I can plant a cherry-tree forest by now.

Wow....

Calm down, guys. What the hell happened to respectful requests for additions, backed up by reputable data?

Sheesh.

Fafnir_6

Hence, UP is known as the "Blue Mod Pack".

The real issue is that even if you have data obtained by cracking IL2's code, you still don't know how the internals of the game's engine use that data.

The MK 108 is a case in point. If you look at the raw data, it has a projectile diameter of 57mm. Yet most agree that it's effectiveness in game is pretty much historical for a 30mm gun. Why? Because of the mechanics of the game engine itself. It is not as cut and dried as "gun X has a 57mm bore so it behaves like a 57mm gun".

But some folks just refuse to understand that salient point, or ignore it on purpose to advance their particular agenda.

And your proof is?

If that wording isn't biased, i don't know what is!

Statements without proof are just noise and smoke!